Lexx_Luthor

Win~7 won't run DOS programs (what programs?). Never mind. But, I have old DOS hard drive I plug in for that, unplug the Win-7 drive. I Boot up MSDOS 6.22 and everything is lightning fast. Its amazing old software and some old hardware still work perfectly with today's gear. I've done alot of Fortran programming in DOS, stuff I still use. The Fortran is 32bit. So when I use this stuff, I run 32bit software on a 16bit operating system on 64bit hardware (64bit AMD, 4GB DDR3, 790FX motherboard, etc...). It works. I transfer my Fortran compiler to the old Microsoft DOS ram-drive, using RAM to simulate a hard drive. Compile times are like 30 times faster now then back in the day. I can't use near the 4GB of memory, but the DDR3 and new cpu are many times faster than the old RDRAM and Pentium-1 of the mid 1990s.

Nice indeed. I traced this link down through this. Tornado strike against SAC 1952 ~> http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/tornado/tornado.htm

Veltro2k:: One of the big reasons for that, is because of Veltro2k. :good: :drinks:

I like this one with mig and Phantom ~> http://www.colacola.se/expo_phantom.htm

I do need some blue in there. Getting back into it. I found some good links. Most common colour is yellow and green, then red, then blue. I see varying opinions on the distance of the aurora ring from the north magnetic pole: from 1500km to 2500km. I used 2000km to setup the ring in my game a few years back.

Do they shine strong enough to cast shadows on a clear dark moonless night? I could do that. In fact, this was I guess a "pre-experiment" I did when I first got into THE SF, back maybe 2005. Its a horizontal sprite, not vertical, pure static but the basic experiment worked to learn how far I could push the grafix distances. The sprite was defined far north off the map edge, so the light source is very distant, so the shadows vary little if you fly a few hundred km. Edit: I remember now. That was taken from an aurora photo, then smeared, and of course laid horizontal (wrong!). So the colours there^ are what could be seen I guess. From Mississippie, all we could see was a faint red glow low in the north sky. I guess shorter wavelengths got eaten by the atmosphere haze. Indeed, I do quite like the purple.

I did at first -- Blue -- but it looked "too much" but then it could use alot of tweaking which I haven't done yet. Mostly I see red and green in pics. I've never seen these myself except one time in Mis-sip when the aurora was so powerful we could see it a hazy uniform glow low in the northern sky from 20 miles south of Jacksonville, even through the city glow. I've read about the shimmering. Do the colours vary with altitude? In the SF screenshots, the green is below red. I set red starting at 170km, green 100km.

hg that's good to hear. Looking closer I do see red in that pic. I made my aurora to have a very slow shimmer, about 20 seconds particle lifetime with gradual fade in and fade out. Gives something to look at on those long polar night missions. [EmitterType001] Name=Aurora-Red EmissionType=POINT_EMITTER UpdateType=NON_MOVING MaxVisibleDistance=1500E+3 EmissionRate=2 EmissionVolume=300E+3,300E+3,0 ParticleUpdateType=SIMPLE_POINT ParticleRenderType=VERTICAL_SPRITE ParticleRandomOrientation=FALSE ParticleLifeTime=20 ParticleLifeTimeDeviation=0.0 ParticleColorTableType=TABLE ParticleColor[01].Time=0 ParticleColor[01].Value=0,0,0,0 ParticleColor[02].Time=0.2 ParticleColor[02].Value=0.18,0,0,0 ParticleColor[03].Time=0.8 ParticleColor[03].Value=0.18,0,0,0 ParticleColor[04].Time=1 ParticleColor[04].Value=0,0,0,0 ParticleSizeTableType=CONSTANT ParticleSize=100E+3 PositionHeightOffset=170E+3 BaseSizeDeviation=0 TextureMaterial=AuroraMaterial //============================================================================================= [EmitterType002] Name=Aurora-Green : : etc...blah blah

Doc that's interesting to know about the CD image. Thanks for the input fellas/fellattes. The first I ever heard about 7zip was at C5's place, where everything seemed to be some strange 7-zipped. I thought *oh no* but the downloads required it (and thanks!!!) -- and once I used the 7zip, I have never gone back to Winzip/rar.

I like the pure green. That gives me things to think about. First experiments over The SF about two years back...

I always uploaded stuff as zip. For myself I've been using 7zip for a few years after I saw it used at column5's Cold War downloads site. So I just updated something using 7zip. 7zip ~> http://www.7zip.com/

That might be the clue. Stay away hehe. Grampaw Pettibone, Sept. 1955 ::

That's gonna be some good reading, the Columns. Thanx

Nice skin. Beautiful interior for open cockpit. Amazing Veltro.

Enbseries is amazing. I don't need the overpowering Enb "glare" look as I use Enviro file to tweak visuals, but I love the framerate increase from Enb. And I waited over a year before trying it. Man what an increase in performance (DX-9). Julhelm:: That's why I always documented my work at the Thudwire site. My stuff depends on deep tweaking and pushes the game too hard for alot of folks, but I always hoped TK could use the basic raw ideas, never seen in any of TheSims until now, and make them work consistently in his game, and do it far better. There's alot of nice visuals that were possible using the SF1, before the Patch 2008. Classic SF1 Patch 2006 level, with smooth colour transition half hemisphere sky glow in the direction of the setting SF Sun. Stary 9-pine trees stretched to Siberian shape, very few to save frames on budget video card. Thirdwire MiG-21F with Mirage Factory MiG-21F cockpit.

Epic FM failures are not limited to mods. There was a time when TK's MiG-19S couldn't go supersonic clean at high altitude. The 3rd Party B-47E could out run it. Because of my strategic operations interest, I wouldn't have bought this game without the support of mods like B-47. To use them in my campaign, I'll have to make many changes, as I'll have to do with all Thudwire aircraft. The one thing I can't do, is make 3D models. (and terrain tiles, just can't do it) Helmut:: :grin: That's because C5 doesn't want you flying Mirage Factory MiG-21 or Boopidoos' Su-15 Red cockpits in the Nato Fighters campaign, and considering how far back they go, these cockpits are exceptionally nice. Shucks, because the Cold War era has never been done before on a large scale, "quality" is defined as just being in the Cold War era. The Forgotten Battle's MiG-3 cockpit got alot of flack from FB players. But Oleg's MiG-3 cockpit was, by far, the highest quality cockpit in that game, even today with the latest addons from the Moscow Bureau, because MiG-3 is my all time fave WW2 airplane.

Indeed. Helmut, think of one (1) extra airplane -- even just AI -- that you would like to see in your game. Say for example, Yak-28 bomber for Wings Over Europe would be a core addition for Red Air, or AI C-141 as random traffic (I don't know if the campaigns do this). Then, if you enjoy it you will see the need for more and more 3rd Party stuff, and end up downloading half the internet like I did. That's how I got started.

This is a great new feature starting in SF1 Patch 2008: AI attacking BVR without us changing target MaxVisibleDistance. If its been changed so that its even better, it would help TK's customers to know. I have a hunch it hasn't changed (hopefully it has).

I didn't ask a question in that quote. You may have misread me or, more likely, I miswrote you. -- SF Patch 2008 introduced a new AI engagement mode allowing a radar and radar guided missile equipped AI aircraft to switch from normal following waypoints to RHM Attack if an enemy aircraft is within the radar's defined range and within the radar's defined forward detection cone. If I recall, these variables are in the DATA.ini under detectsystem. This AI engagement feature takes effect even if the radar's defined range is greater than MaxVisibleDistance defined for the enemy aircraft, thus allowing AI to conduct BVR engagements without us needing to pump up the visual engagement variable MaxVisibleDistance. However, this feature works only if radar guided missiles are carried, or it did so with SF1 Patch 2008. This does not work if there are no radar guided missiles loaded. The two examples you offered, radar equipped MiG-21s with Atolls, and MiG-17PF with guns, have radars that should not differ as much from a target's visual detection range MaxVisibleDistance, hence that might be causing some confustsion here. Becoming a politician? No. But I did play StrikeFighters last night.

No, what I need is a KMD/LMD created test "mission" with, say, a loaded AI F-4 pointed toward an enemy AI aircraft at well beyond the MaxVisibleDistance set for the enemy target. No Player plane. I need to do this myself: Today I delivered a 12lb jar of Wildflower honey to a friend for her daughter's birthday. I dropped her jar on concrete, glass BUSTED, so I gave her my 12lb jar of Gallberry. The jars were 20 FRNS. That could have been a jar of Thudwire SF2. :good: I was thinking today, and I suspect that in your SF2, you are seeing the normal SF visual range engagement, where radar equipped aircraft "use" radar, but only inside the target's MaxVisibleDistance range...ie...within visual range. The MiG-21Pf's radar is comparable to visual ranges. That early Fishbed version was made for night I suppose, where even the short ranged radar could vastly exceed visual range. In my SF1 2008 KMD tests, I set F-4E head on against MiG-19.... Starting distance about 50km. MiG-19 data.ini had visual detection range about 15km I set F-4 radar detection range at maybe 60km. The F-4 entered afterburner immediately and the huddata text switched from WAYPOINT to RHM Attack. I set starting distance between the two aircraft to 100km in KMD. F-4 would fly WAYPOINT until within radar detect range -- 60km -- then switch to RHM ATTACK. I loaded the F-4 with only AIM-9s (plus guns) and the F-4 would comfortably fly WAYPOINT until closing to MiG-19 MaxVisibleDistance, and only then would enter afterburner and attack (forgot which weapon). I *think* I did try other orientations, so the front or rear aspect of the Sparrows or Sidewinders are not an issue. Even if they are, the F-4 should go afterburner and the hud text should display some type of engagement/pursuit method. Its been a while since I did the SF1 2008 tests. Thanks anyways. If you'd like to try it, go for it. I should get a jar of SF2 and do it here.

they are low priced ~> https://store.thirdwire.com/store.htm Okay I might have to try one or two of these out. SF2V and/or SF2E. I like how TK brought back the StrikeFighters name. I never liked the "Wings Over" naming theme.

Indeed tell us more. Maybe that changed between SF Patch 2008 and SF2. Thanks. That could be a game changer for me. Does the new ECM spectrum feature apply only to Player plane for use on the player's RWR, or does it somehow effect AI aircraft behavior as well? The lack of documentation is a big problem for today's TheSims developers. I should poast the Patch readme for Master Of Orion I from 1994. It gave full details of all game changes, to the tiniest detail if a player would observe any difference in how the software functioned in game, It was several pages in the 55 line VGA mode, including full description of numerous AI behavior changes.

usafmtl:: The feature I like most is the half hemisphere sky glow in the direction of the rising/setting SF sun. That was very tweakable to get results far beyond the stock game. TK did an amazing job with that. In Patch 2008, and SF2+, this was replaced by the blood red camera lens glare that washes out terrain and planes. I can't tolerate this, at all. You can take this out but it leaves a barren sky. TK went for the "camera" look. I always assume we look through the eyes of air crew, not cameras. this...in the twilight after sunset, the smooth transition from blue to yellow closer to the horizon near the SF sun. But that's not enough to keep me from upgrading. I loved the new high altitude sky darkening that TK sneaked into Patch 2008 and pleasantly surprised everybody, but I found my own method of varying sky colour with altitude. Even in olde SF 2006, I can have light blue at sea level, Oxcart blue at 80k feet, and various shades in between. I like TK's [HighAlt] method better, but my own way is close enough so this feature no longer pulls me toward upgrading. Even so, I was almost ready to finally upgrade to SF 2008 and then SF2 (I could use the Loft feature) until streak let out about the AI visual look angles. TK deleted this feature at the request of some players looking for more "challenging" dogfights. I was hoping to use them in my project for my own purporses -- tweaking them for day or night interception including searchlight guided intercepts (Wild Sau, used in Korea) among other things. Why TK couldn't make this an option in a config file I don't know. That's another reason for me to live in the past. In Patch 2008, TK let out RHM attack for AI controlled aircraft -- NOT an airborne radar attack. The feature only works if the aircraft is armed with a radar guided missile. So, this new feature can't be used to let AI fly guns-only radar attack (F3D Skyknight ) or radar guided infrared missile attack (MiG-21PF + atoll). I figured out a workaround involving a "fake" radar guided missile with minimum range near visual range of target, but it would work best in combination with tweaking AI visual look angles. But as noted above, this feature was deleted. Still, if TK brought some of these features back as options, or created new features that I need, such as the map wide combat results recorder, I'll bite. Man I really REALLY like the RHM attack feature's ability to set 0 to 360 degree coverage for simulating long range GCI -- the angle could be reduced to very small angles, including 0, to simulate the crippling of PVO ground radar stations in a campaign. Man just thinking about this makes me want to upgrade. Thanks alot Dave. Loft too. I know about the ECM settings which are really cool. But, I assume those are for Player plane only. If not, that's another thing that could get me to upgrade, dam the environmentsystem.ini But...I can't use ECM in any of the SF games new or old, because because breaking lock causes immediate missile *full* warhead self destruct, just off the pylon or SAM launcher. If there's a nuc warhead involved, that full destruct takes out the entire SAM launcher of aircraft flight. So I don't use ECM. Chaff works though, as the missile gets close to the target before being affected, and then flies well beyond before self destruct. Anyways, its a fun challenge molding TK's sim however he does it. He got mad at me for not upgrading, but like I said, its his business decision so that way there should be no hard feelings. TK is still the best. Like he told us; there are enough sims that do post-modern all digital superHUDjets and WW2 props, and there are enough things to do in between to keep him busy for many years ahead. So TK is staying Cold War. Ya gotta love him for that alone.

I've forgotten ALOT of this stuff, so maybe we'd better move along, nothing to see here lol. ie...put my poast here on Ignore. It may be 4th root. I'm guessing here so ... You consider only the difference in volume. Also consider the work or energy expended by the blast pushing through air 10x the distance. Assuming that work expended goes up linearly with distance, we are dealt one more distance unit to divide the final blast damage ability by. Using this, 1MT over 1kt would give 5.6 times the distance, instead of 10 times. Or the exponent could be between 3 and 4 or whatever (the complicated "real life" thing). If I recall, another consideration is that high yield weapons have more flash to blast ratio. ie...less blast more flash than you would expect from scaling the yields linearly. Another hassle is when you get large distances, difference in air density with altitude comes into play. I think at high enough altitudes (and high yields), blast damage can be ignored, leaving flash damage the most significant factor. Hence my favorite colour anti-flash white which they started using with the high yield weapons. The point with high yield weapons is the area of damage to all objects in that area is still pretty good. When restricting consideration to a single object, high yields do look bad. I've seen it noted somewhere that if you want to create destruction over as large an area as possible using minimum total yield, you have to use multiple small yields. Aiming and dropping them all correctly is not possible, at least not back in the Day Of LeMay using a single bomber. Also, from 1kt to 1MT+, yields scale up fantastically with increasing weapon mass. Both taken together explain (to me ) the popularity of using a single high yield weapon for wide area destruction instead of many smaller yield weapons.

Pretty smooth there. Back in Forgotten Battles, I printed out the maps, instead of using the little ingame map. Doing this gave the game a new dimension. Very nice. You had to pay attention while flying long distances.